Clinton is no longer President. Therefore, his administration is being used as a comparison to the current one.

If, however, the current administration's policies are being compared to the previous one, I would at least like some examples included in the comparison.

If I simply said "Bush's policies are the best," I would at least expect to be called on such a statement, by DS77, or V03 or other view I respect.

I wouldn't take offense, because that's how effective debate is conducted.

Honestly though, I would try and at least include factual examples with such a claim, from the beginning:

1)so that my views would be supported and

2)Others can factually refute them

What's the point of submitting something like "Clinton was more effective," without even illustrating why?

If you can drop the "partisan" label, for just a second, and actually look at my question, that was all I was asking for.

But now that you mention Albright's testimomy, here are some points from it:

[link=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/]HERE[/link]

The failure of the Bush and Clinton administrations to pursue military action against al-Qaida operatives allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture despite warning signs years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.

But former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the first official to testify before the commission, said the Clinton administration "did everything ... we could think of" to eliminate the threat posed by al-Qaida.

In its preliminary report, the commission found that the Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links between Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions in an effort to subduing them abroad.

Bush officials failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

The bipartisan report released Tuesday said that U.S. agencies sacrificed speed in comprehensively investigating pre-9/11 terrorist attacks that ultimately were attributed to al-Qaida.

Again, the purpose of the 9/11 commission shouldn't be political, it should focus on the weaknesses of US intelligence, in order to improve them.

To me, it looks like each administration had their own strentghs and weaknesses, which is to be expected. (or is such a statement "too partisan?")